If a woman can have an abortion because she owns her body and no one can deny her a right to do whatever she pleases with her body, I want to be able to do any and all drugs on the same grounds.

"it is easy to grow crazy"

October 24, 201012:05 am

Wing-Zero

Member

Members

Forum Posts: 3278

Member Since: April 9, 2009

Offline

2

-sigh- Everyone who's going to be in this discussion, please be SOMEWHAT polite and civil to each other.

War is an extension of economics and diplomacy through other means.

Economics and diplomacy are methods of securing resources used by humans.

Securing resources is the one necessary behavior for all living things.

War = Life

October 24, 20101:01 am

greeney2

Member

Members

Forum Posts: 10245

Member Since: April 9, 2009

Offline

3

At1 your logic in that request, is equal to your logic about understanding Constitutional law. See how polite I was.

October 24, 20101:36 am

Halfabo

Member

Members

Forum Posts: 650

Member Since: April 9, 2009

Offline

4

While it is your body, and I agree you should be able to do anything to your own body you want to, there is a problem in allowing everyone to take any drugs they want. You may be putting them in your body but, while under their influence, you could and probably would harm other people. A person cannot act responsibly while under the influence of drugs.

October 24, 20101:42 am

Wing-Zero

Member

Members

Forum Posts: 3278

Member Since: April 9, 2009

Offline

5

"Halfabo" wrote: A person cannot act responsibly while under the influence of drugs.

Any sort of responsibility? Or certain kinds, like say... watching a child or driving a car? I'd agree with you for the latter.

War is an extension of economics and diplomacy through other means.

Economics and diplomacy are methods of securing resources used by humans.

Securing resources is the one necessary behavior for all living things.

War = Life

October 24, 20106:29 am

at1with0

Member

Members

Forum Posts: 9243

Member Since: April 9, 2009

Offline

6

"greeney2" wrote: At1 your logic in that request, is equal to your logic about understanding Constitutional law. See how polite I was.

You're the one who fails to grasp basic constitutional law and the way the legal system works in this country.

Have you considered the possibility that what I said is an argument against abortion?

"Halfabo" wrote: While it is your body, and I agree you should be able to do anything to your own body you want to, there is a problem in allowing everyone to take any drugs they want. You may be putting them in your body but, while under their influence, you could and probably would harm other people. A person cannot act responsibly while under the influence of drugs.

When a woman has an abortion, other (would be) people are harmed. Not probably. Do.

Anyways, your argument implies that drugs should come with warning labels as well as regulation (such as maintaining the illegality of DUI) and that's about it.

"it is easy to grow crazy"

October 24, 201010:09 am

Nesaie

Member

Members

Forum Posts: 1452

Member Since: April 9, 2009

Offline

7

Actually, this is a very good question and is directly tied to the Constitution. Roe vs. Wade was won using the Forth Amendment, shortened as "the right to privacy". I disagree with that use of the Forth Amendment. I agree with Ron Paul in that it's a state issue, not a federal one and certainly not a Constitutional one.

Yet, when it comes to growing pot, the feds unlawfully break the Forth Amendment by spying and using technology to randomly see if there is too much heat in a person's home. I've heard of people who used hydroponics to grow tomatoes and a swat team showed up. Where is their privacy? Where is the presumption of being innocent?

While it is your body, and I agree you should be able to do anything to your own body you want to, there is a problem in allowing everyone to take any drugs they want. You may be putting them in your body but, while under their influence, you could and probably would harm other people. A person cannot act responsibly while under the influence of drugs.

Do laws prevent people's actions? We both know they don't. Statistics show that when countries legalize drugs, crime and drug consumption decrease. In the US, a stat I read was that 60% of the population is on drugs...prescription drugs. Those are far worse than pot. I'd rather live next door to a pothead than a prozachead. I know what the stoner is going to do, they're predictable. But, the person on prozac may kill themself or kill me.

If a crime occurs because a person is on drugs, prosecute the crime. But, don't prosecute the addict if no crime is created. That is like thought crime to me. Instead, help the addict to get off the drug. If drugs are legalized, it is easier for people to go for help without the stigma or fear of prosecution. Cigarettes are legal, and look at how many people have quit. Same with alcohol.

But, I don't believe that marijuana is a drug. I believe it is a medication, as is heroine and coke. When used correctly, they all have benefits.

Such a society would be dominated by an elite, unrestrained by traditional values. Soon it will be possible to assert almost continuous surveillance over every citizen... - Zbigniew Brezhinsky

October 24, 20107:20 pm

greeney2

Member

Members

Forum Posts: 10245

Member Since: April 9, 2009

Offline

8

I think we have run the constitutional horse into the ground At1. Maybe you need to go back to school and take basic Government again. There is a Federal level, State and local levels of Government. There are Federal and State Constitutions.

October 25, 201012:26 am

frrostedman

Member

Members

Forum Posts: 3815

Member Since: September 4, 2009

Offline

9

at1's argument looks pretty sound to me.

If it's true (and it is) that the law says a human being can even go as far as so kill another human being living within its body because human beings own their bodies and can do what they desire with them; then absolutely--it should thus be legal to put whatever drug they want into their bodies as well--as long as they bring no harm to another human being living outside their body.

In fact, taken to the most inhumane--yet legal--level possible, human beings--by law--should be allowed to take any and all drugs that would knowingly kill a baby living within them.

The key here in our legal system seems to be this: do what you want with your own body as long as you bring harm to no one outside your body. It's no holds barred if a human being has the unfortunate circumstance of living within the boundaries of your physical presence.

Halfabo is right, there is a problem and that is the potential harm to others. If that can be satisfactorily demonstrated to be a real threat with certain drugs--pot not being one of them, clearly--then those drugs should be given tougher regulations such as jail time for being under the influence of more than a certain amount. Just like today, if someone takes 3 times their prescription dosage for pain killers and goes out driving, they can be jailed for driving under the influence.

Limits would have to be set for drugs that aren't prescribed.

Cocaine for example. No more than 2 eight balls in your system at a time.
LSD - 6 hit limit per 8 hours.

Stuff like that.

😎

Every one who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe-a spirit vastly superior to that of man. - Albert Einstein

October 25, 20105:53 am

greeney2

Member

Members

Forum Posts: 10245

Member Since: April 9, 2009

Offline

10

To be honest, I was overlapping 2 different threads, one where At1's legal theory about the State pot law on the ballot in California, IMHO is wrong. I think his legal ideas are completly wrong about the 10th ammendment, do not apply to the election repealing an exsisting law. He still failed to show where the Federal Constitution allows a State to repeal a Federal law. Wishful thinking becasue he is in favor of legalizing pot, does not make a Constitutional theory correct.

His basis for this thread, is trying to confound Constitutional rights, with laws that have nothing do to with each other. The rights of a woman and bearing a child, has nothing to do with drug laws proven to be lethal, and of no use other than altering your state of mind. You may promise to control you use taking them, but during the course of taking them, you are not in control of yourself, are you? Therefore regardless of intentions, they are still a risk to all others around you, including yourself. Isn't our laws intended to defend, but also to protect? Sorry but the rights of women regarding pregnancy, is not the same rhelm as the right to abuse yourself with drugs. Drug laws are in place to protect you from their dangers.

The Black Vault Newsletter

Facebook

This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in an effort to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. we believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law.

If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.